Given that the synthesis of cumulated knowledge is an essential condition for any field to grow and develop, we believe that the enhanced role of IS reviews requires that this expository form be given careful scrutiny. Over the past decade, several senior scholars have made calls for more review papers in our field. While the number of IS review papers has substantially increased in recent years, no prior research has attempted to develop a general framework to conduct and evaluate the rigor of standalone reviews. In this paper, we fill this gap. More precisely, we present a set of guidelines for guiding and evaluating IS literature reviews and specify to which review types they apply. To do so, we first distinguish between four broad categories of review papers and then propose a set of guidelines that are grouped according to the generic phases and steps of the review process. We hope our work will serve as a valuable source for those conducting, evaluating, and/or interpreting reviews in our field.
Templier et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: